• Announcements

    • XOOM

      Volunteer PHP Developer wanted to revive the Gazette!   07/24/2019

      We're looking to properly revive the World@War Gazette and need a solid PHP developer to help take some work forward. If you have some skills with PHP and are looking for some experience and to bring important home page news / recognition for individual players back to WWII Online, I'd like to hear from you! Submit an inquiry to jobs@corneredrats.com with some details about your experience. You will need at least 10+ hours per week to contribute to the team. The Gazette's current status can be found here: https://www.wwiionline.com/resources#gazette
XOOM

LMG Solution Planned

347 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, jet2019 said:

I tend to agree with arty on fixed spawn locations. We have mortars now and the fact that they are still used mostly for smoke is telling. Softening up a target before sending in the troops was SOP for both sides.

Hopefully in the future the devs can come up with a plan that allows both sides to use artillery, even if its just the ao oic asking AI to just shell a certain coordinate with some randomness.

 

Thoughts?

Well the "certain coordinates" being shelled will be the AB or the FB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, madrebel said:

sure, needs a lot of command and control functionality as well as ammo tracking. you'd have to have some sort of hard limiters on it though. fixed known spawns = super awful gameplay even if we had the 80mm medium mortars. would need a lot more mobile spawn options otherwise the game would just break.

Agreed on the need for increased mobile spawn options----I would do so in the form of FBs placed by brigade, with HC Officers being responsible for it, (I have a crazy idea of breaking it down to say, the regimental level and tasking/allowing squad leaders to place regimental FBs).  Mobile FBs by brigade would eliminate the need for spawn points in towns (other than perhaps garrison troops), and would eliminate any impediment to bringing notional Artillery into the game, in the form of X fire missions being allowed per person of rank (or HC) in a given area.  The player(s) would simply call for a fire mission to Y location (dare I say grid coordinates?), and after an appropriate delay for realism's sake, the fire mission is fired, the rounds travel, then impact.

 

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, csm308 said:

You are, of course, forgetting why the Allied HEAT RG's were removed.  The "Rambo LMG" manner they were being used. 

Did I say in the post to which you were responding:

Quote

Replace with British and French HEAT RGs that did exist...British Tier 0, French Tier 1...but more realistically constrain their mechanics.

I believe I did. Did you read and comprehend those words? What did  you suppose I was saying...is there some other problem to which I might have been referring?

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Did I say in the post to which you were responding:

I believe I did. Did you read and comprehend those words? What did  you suppose I was saying...is there some other problem to which I might have been referring?

 

Your attempt at, ahem, "sanitization" of why the Allied HEAT grenades were removed is noted.  It does not change the fact that you didn't mention it.

VR

Edited by csm308

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, augetout said:

Agreed on the need for increased mobile spawn options----I would do so in the form of FBs placed by brigade, with HC Officers being responsible for it, (I have a crazy idea of breaking it down to say, the regimental level and tasking/allowing squad leaders to place regimental FBs).  Mobile FBs by brigade would eliminate the need for spawn points in towns (other than perhaps garrison troops), and would eliminate any impediment to bringing notional Artillery into the game, in the form of X fire missions being allowed per person of rank (or HC) in a given area.  The player(s) would simply call for a fire mission to Y location (dare I say grid coordinates?), and after an appropriate delay for realism's sake, the fire mission is fired, the rounds travel, then impact.

 

S!

Not quiet that simple in reality, and comms in 1940 were usually telephone land lines that were easily cut or "crossed" with calls routed to the wrong battery or to a completely unrelated unit. Then there is operator error, atmospheric and climate effects (presume these are heavier guns in rear echelon assigned at Division level?), hot barrels, tired gunners, type of barrage required (creeping, sustained, rolling, salvo)... So you call for your barrage, and find out if there is an available battery, with enough ammo, etc. Then they fire for effect. Correct. Correct again if needed, and then you get your barrage.

Actually, having AI batteries somewhat randomly located on the map in the vicinity of the HQ flag would give a role for aircraft and recon units. Find the enemy artillery and counter battery fire or bomb it? Or deep raid by truck borne engies? The AI gun positions would be to the rear when the HQ is on the front line, and towards the front when the HQ is behind the line. BUT that is not relevant for this thread.

 

S! ian

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ian77 said:

Not quiet that simple in reality, and comms in 1940 were usually telephone land lines that were easily cut or "crossed" with calls routed to the wrong battery or to a completely unrelated unit. Then there is operator error, atmospheric and climate effects (presume these are heavier guns in rear echelon assigned at Division level?), hot barrels, tired gunners, type of barrage required (creeping, sustained, rolling, salvo)... So you call for your barrage, and find out if there is an available battery, with enough ammo, etc. Then they fire for effect. Correct. Correct again if needed, and then you get your barrage.

Actually, having AI batteries somewhat randomly located on the map in the vicinity of the HQ flag would give a role for aircraft and recon units. Find the enemy artillery and counter battery fire or bomb it? Or deep raid by truck borne engies? The AI gun positions would be to the rear when the HQ is on the front line, and towards the front when the HQ is behind the line. BUT that is not relevant for this thread.

 

S! ian

Agreed (it would be complicated, it would add mission types for aircraft and recon units, and it is not relevant to this thread, lol)

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, augetout said:

There are few things on this earth that will twist me up quicker than being called a liar, either directly or as in your case, baselessly implying it.  The fact that you still haven't backed off of your baseless assertion indicates you are either dense, or lacking in simple courtesy, and honor.  I'm not sure which, although the 'uh-huh' bit suggests the problem has its roots in the area of 'dense'.

I'm not sure which of your diagnostic options may apply, but I agree there's an issue.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Capco said:

@madrebelI thought the DB-7 used F100 not F200.  Isn't the F200 only on the Bell?

That should be correct, i dont think it can lift 8 F200's?
And havoc carries 8 GP250

Bell and the Hurri FB have F200 and MC500 respectively
And the other one has a GP500, and i cant remember off hand what it is :( unless i dreamed it.
 

 

29 minutes ago, jet2019 said:

I tend to agree with arty on fixed spawn locations. We have mortars now and the fact that they are still used mostly for smoke is telling. Softening up a target before sending in the troops was SOP for both sides.

Hopefully in the future the devs can come up with a plan that allows both sides to use artillery, even if its just the ao oic asking AI to just shell a certain coordinate with some randomness.

 

Thoughts?

My thoughts are this.
Arty gun, little or even no self hauled ammo
No click N shoot sighting or self supplied long range optics (binocs).
No easy mode to it, it would be difficult to use.
That is the price for being able to try to deploy a wide area denial weapon

So using it requires at least someone providing ammo, and at least one person serving as a forward observer
calling fire accurate corrections.

One gun of course does not exactly deliver enough ammo down range fast enough, even if it is a good fire team and have rounds on target, to shut things down
So to do much, you need several.
Which of course gains you a lot of notability from air sweeps when they start seeing multiple smoke locations and shell streaks, so you may need to set up a proper arty location, with air support and what not.
If you successfully start delivering barrages, someone is coming hunting for you, and even a blen mk I could become suddenly your worst nightmare.
 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this...leads itself to combined arms at its best.

Would it be the easiest way to implement by spawning at the fb locations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Chaoswzkd said:

The issue with increasing dispersion is that all you end up doing is rendering it even more similar to a fully automatic shotgun. It's not a valid fix because it can make the weapon even more useful to clearing out rooms.

Ok, I can understand the problem you are raising, but the solution that they have taken does not seem to be the right one. For the same reason, as some comrades have commented here, you should prevent shooting by running or walking with anything other than a gun.
With the proposed modification, a lmg can not enter CAPTURE a cp if it is defended or ENTER to take in a bunker. FOR THESE ASSUMPTIONS it becomes a useless weapon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, nerco250 said:

With the proposed modification, a lmg can not enter CAPTURE a cp if it is defended or ENTER to take in a bunker. FOR THESE ASSUMPTIONS it becomes a useless weapon

I'd counter this argument with the notion that LMGs are support weapons, not assault weapons.  

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Capco said:

I'd counter this argument with the notion that LMGs are support weapons, not assault weapons.  

OK perfect. In reality it was like that, but this is a game. Let's see how and how much the lmg is used from now on. And if it favors more players online or less.


In any case, the argument that "it is that in real life this did not work like this" is used at convenience. The rest of the automatic weapons, smgs and rifles, were fired on the run as usual?  Was it normal for there to be more armor than infantry inside a city? ... I can understand that we want to eliminate the use of the lmg in small spaces, but that nobody tries to convince me that it is done for a "historical" reason. If we use that argument, we must redefine ALL the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nerco250 said:

OK perfect. In reality it was like that, but this is a game. Let's see how and how much the lmg is used from now on. And if it favors more players online or less.


In any case, the argument that "it is that in real life this did not work like this" is used at convenience. The rest of the automatic weapons, smgs and rifles, were fired on the run as usual?  Was it normal for there to be more armor than infantry inside a city? ... I can understand that we want to eliminate the use of the lmg in small spaces, but that nobody tries to convince me that it is done for a "historical" reason. If we use that argument, we must redefine ALL the game

I agree.  Running and shooting should not be allowed with any weapon (except maybe a pistol? lol).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, nerco250 said:

If we use that argument, we must redefine ALL the game

> Changed bombs so they have more realistic armor penetration and HE damage model

> Changed tank and ATG gunsights to be more accurate to actual gunsights

> Changed all HE and AP ammo to have correct fragmentation, armor penetration, and trajectory

> Changed TOEs to more closely model actual WW2 TOEs as a test

> Now changing LMGs so you can't move while firing because the best you could realistically do was walk at a very slow pace while carefully braced

You: "Okay, but being more historical or realistic clearly can't be the reason; you'd have to change the whole game!"

 

Did you miss the memo, perhaps? It's pretty clear what CRS is doing and has been doing.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Capco said:

I agree.  Running and shooting should not be allowed with any weapon (except maybe a pistol? lol).  

+1 Absolutely.

When we stop all the rambos, we might see decent rifle play and less warping cp clearers. Well we might....

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Capco said:

I agree.  Running and shooting should not be allowed with any weapon (except maybe a pistol? lol).  

I'm not so sure about this.

Would have to check Post Scriptum and ARMA 3 to see how they handle this...I don't recall offhand, but I know you can shoot SMGs while moving, but perhaps not at the equivalent of WWIIOL's jogging speed. However those games handle it exactly, I can tell you that it is elegant and seamless.

4 hours ago, ian77 said:

+1 Absolutely.

When we stop all the rambos, we might see decent rifle play and less warping cp clearers. Well we might....

 

S! Ian

No, we won't see that until the day that CRS removes the ability for dozens of players to spawn literally right on top of the enemy.

Remove spawn-camping, remove CP-capping altogether. Replace it with area-based capture. Make it so that a certain threshold of enemy units within proximity of your spawn temporarily disables spawning (if your guys on the ground fail to eject the enemy and re-enable spawning, tough).

Until then, the ridiculous Unreal Tournament + warpy/laggy inf + WWII weapons in urban combat will continue indefinitely.

Edited by xanthus
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC.

Talking about STO's and other unrelated stuff, including personal attacks, doesn't make sense and it isn't helping getting across clear information.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I recommend removing the head-shaking and text when attempting to fire an LMG while moving. I know it *seems* like this is a necessary prophylactic against player confusion, but it's really unnecessary. Players will intuit that they can't move while firing when it's obvious that they can't move while firing.

Not to harp on other games, but it's worth mentioning that implementation of restrictions like these just doesn't involve text that flashes on the screen or an annoying involuntary POV-head-shake. Players (old and new) will quickly figure it out without these things.

In fact, if anything, I predict a flood of angry posts from players on both sides once the LMG fix goes live; they'll be complaining about the fact that even an accidental mouse click now brings up unwanted text and an obnoxious head-shake unless they time their shooting *exactly* right. I realize that there's an argument that this could further serve to pigeon-hole the LMG into being used the way it was meant to be: deployed from a fixed position (the only reliable way to avoid the text and head-shake). Fair, but still, just as a question of elegant UI design and player experience, I still think the text and head-shake should be omitted....

And while we're on the topic, the head-shake should be 100% eliminated from other situations too. Just totally unnecessary.

IMHO

Edited by xanthus
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bound to be posts "I was killed while shaking my head"

 

S! Ian

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Chaoswzkd said:

> Changed bombs so they have more realistic armor penetration and HE damage model

> Changed tank and ATG gunsights to be more accurate to actual gunsights

> Changed all HE and AP ammo to have correct fragmentation, armor penetration, and trajectory

> Changed TOEs to more closely model actual WW2 TOEs as a test

> Now changing LMGs so you can't move while firing because the best you could realistically do was walk at a very slow pace while carefully braced

You: "Okay, but being more historical or realistic clearly can't be the reason; you'd have to change the whole game!"

 

Did you miss the memo, perhaps? It's pretty clear what CRS is doing and has been doing.

It is very clear. Just ask the majority of those who play with a tank if the HE model seems to be fixed. Or if the issue of the grenades seems corrected. Or if the new quantity and disparity of tanks in according to which brigades and side seems real or logical.
I insist. This is a game. And it bothers me that the criterion of "that is not real" is used to change according to what things and keep others.
In any case, I will not discuss it anymore. I know that CRS is working on fixing issues such as the damage model of HE, AP ... and I value the effort, but the biggest problem of the game right now is the shortage of players. And actions like this, referred to the lmg, I'm afraid it does not help to increase the number of players, if not the opposite.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nerco250 said:

 Or if the issue of the grenades seems corrected. 

Come on nerco, you *know* the grenades are fixed. As a die-hard inf player, I can confirm 100% that grenades  work the way they should now for the first time since 2001.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll third the grenades working - clearing a CP as a rifleman is much more feasible than it used to be, as you can pitch 4 grenades through the upstairs windows.

In fact, it works well enough that I suspect over time, CP defence will shift to the first level as there's more walls to duck behind.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep even the allied grenades work now - well they kill me at least!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2019 at 0:10 PM, xanthus said:

FWIW, I recommend removing the head-shaking and text when attempting to fire an LMG while moving. I know it *seems* like this is a necessary prophylactic against player confusion, but it's really unnecessary. Players will intuit that they can't move while firing when it's obvious that they can't move while firing.

Not to harp on other games, but it's worth mentioning that implementation of restrictions like these just doesn't involve text that flashes on the screen or an annoying involuntary POV-head-shake. Players (old and new) will quickly figure it out without these things.

In fact, if anything, I predict a flood of angry posts from players on both sides once the LMG fix goes live; they'll be complaining about the fact that even an accidental mouse click now brings up unwanted text and an obnoxious head-shake unless they time their shooting *exactly* right. I realize that there's an argument that this could further serve to pigeon-hole the LMG into being used the way it was meant to be: deployed from a fixed position (the only reliable way to avoid the text and head-shake). Fair, but still, just as a question of elegant UI design and player experience, I still think the text and head-shake should be omitted....

And while we're on the topic, the head-shake should be 100% eliminated from other situations too. Just totally unnecessary.

IMHO

I have not ever seen any commentary regarding the head shaking as a problem until this post. 

It is the only tangible way that we currently have to let people know that what they're doing, is not an allowed action.

So, I don't plan to rip it out. Solution: Don't spam an action you can't perform.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.